The description of Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) highlights several valid points regarding its utility in measuring fluid intelligence—specifically, abstract reasoning and pattern recognition. Its non-verbal format does provide a practical advantage, making the test seemingly more accessible across cultures and languages. This is a major strength, especially in comparative or cross-cultural research where language-based tests risk introducing substantial bias. Additionally, the test’s structure—simple administration, minimal verbal instruction, and scalability—makes it attractive for both clinical and educational use.

However, the portrayal of RPM as culturally “fair” warrants critical scrutiny. While it avoids linguistic barriers, the assumption that abstract reasoning tasks are culturally neutral is problematic. Even non-verbal tasks can reflect culturally specific patterns of reasoning, familiarity with test-taking conventions, or exposure to visual-spatial challenges (e.g., puzzles or pattern-based games). Thus, cultural fairness is relative, not absolute, and depends on broader sociocognitive experiences. The RPM may still advantage individuals who are more accustomed to abstract, decontextualized problem-solving—a skillset often emphasized in Western-style education systems.

Another key limitation rightly noted is the narrow scope of RPM. It focuses almost exclusively on fluid intelligence, omitting other critical domains such as crystallized intelligence (knowledge acquired through learning), emotional intelligence, or context-based reasoning. In practical terms, this means that RPM provides an incomplete picture of an individual’s overall intellectual functioning. It is also worth noting that RPM does not measure executive functions like planning, impulse control, or verbal reasoning, which are often crucial in real-world performance and are captured in more comprehensive intelligence batteries such as the WAIS.

Moreover, the issue of test fatigue—especially with its repetitive, pattern-based tasks—is more than a minor drawback. Fatigue can distort results and undermine the test’s reliability, particularly in populations with lower attention spans (e.g., children or individuals with cognitive impairments). While this is acknowledged, the deeper implication is that RPM may not be ideal for extended or high-stakes evaluations where motivation and engagement fluctuate significantly.

In conclusion, Raven’s Progressive Matrices remains a valuable tool for assessing fluid intelligence in a relatively efficient and culturally flexible way. However, its strengths must be contextualized, and its use should be paired with other assessments to avoid overgeneralizing a narrow slice of intelligence as a complete cognitive profile. Claims of cultural neutrality should be made cautiously, and users must be aware of the cognitive domains the test omits.

• Muhammad Fajri Hamdy